Milwaukeean originally from Chicago, I'm very interested in moving to Albuquerque next year.  Milwaukee's population size is perfect for me, and it's almost the same as Abq's.  Low rent on studio apts, good job availability (I'm fine with starting off at a call center until I get more settled), bike friendly and queer friendliness are my priorities.  I understand that Abq has terrible drivers, gangs, drugs and a high crime rate...but I've lived 22 years in Chicago.  Any advice?

I moved back to Milwaukee in April and, since then, I've been stood up eight times.  A person (usually from OkC) and I agree upon a time and place to meet, then I show up but the person doesn't.  Sometimes my would-be date texts/emails/calls to cancel as I'm heading out the door, but more often the update is sent at the mutually agreed-upon meeting time.

From 1/11 through 3/12 in Chicago, I had at least one first date a month.  Up until April, I had been stood up maybe three times ever.  What's going on?  I'm not doing anything differently, though the repeated disappointment has deflated my motivation.  Is it Milwaukee?

Anyone who's ever watched Looney Toons and other hokey children's cartoons are probably familiar with scenes in which a small tumbleweed rolls across the scene to signify boredom.  The visual equivalent of crickets chirping, a tumbleweed emphasizes the emptiness of what's happening.

In real life, small tumbleweeds like that, about the size of a basketball, roll around so long as there is a slight breeze and/or slope.  Fullgrown tumbleweeds, however, can grow to the size of a pickup truck, and it takes powerful gusts to roll them across the landscape.

Tumbleweeds are actually trees with very shallow roots.  Their branches grow very low to the ground and in a round shape, holding in thousands of seeds.  When the wind is strong enough, the tree dislodges from its spot and rolls across the landscape and the seeds scatter - kamikaze propagation.  Larger tumbleweeds can cause terrible destruction in high winds, as rolling dries out these trees and they shatter explosively upon impact.

A tumbleweed will see many remarkable things on its travels across the desert, only to continue the cycle of shallow roots and self-destroying reproduction.  Would one come to rest on rock rather than sandy soil, the cycle would be broken.

My cousin-in-law is an artist and, when I was 11, she began taking me to a figure drawing studio every other Sunday.  This continued until the studio closed six years later, but then I took honors art classes in high school and those involved figure drawing.  And then I kept doing figure drawing throughout college.

It took a few years, especially since my mother poked my belly and called me fat when I was in middle school, but this exposure to naked bodies dramatically changed my beauty standards.  In figure drawing, the most interesting bodies are "flawed" - fat, saggy, scarred, and marked.  Drawing different bodies so frequently shifted my understanding of the "ideal" body, so I rejected the mainstream standards in favor of every body.

The best way to develop body positivity, especially in children, is to see every kind of body in a welcoming setting over a long period of time.

I admit that I was frustrated and flustered when I wrote the original Sexual Objectification blog entry, therefore it isn't well written.  Here is the edited version, beginning with some definitions:

sexualization: prioritising the sex, sexuality and sexiness of a person.

sexual objectification: treating a person as a sexual object.

feminism: the belief that people of all genders and sexes should have equal opportunity and choice.

the women's movement: the history of feminism, particularly in America in the 1960's/'70's

http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html

A friend posted this on her facebook.  She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexual objectification.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16.  My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexual objectification was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing.  Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."

Because of the correlation between the women's movement and shifts in advertising, this can appear as a causation.  In the years leading up to the women's movement, sexual objectification in advertising was minimal - women still appeared in advertising as service objects, only fully clothed.  The levels of sexual objectification, particularly of women, in mainstream advertising are at a disturbing high today in American culture.

However, women were more sexually objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband before the women's movement.  Higher education was discouraged for a woman because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly.  Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.

So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no."  What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."

.....WHAT?!?!?!?  Don't most laws come about through cultural shifts?!?!?  The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished.  It gave women choices, that's what feminism is.  However, because woman-as-sex-objects are still very highly valued in our culture - as evidenced by advertising - many women make the ill-informed choice to objectify themselves.  I argue that a choice made without awareness of other options isn't an autonomous decision at all, which is the difference between sexualization and sexual objectification.  If you want me to elaborate on how I know these women's decision-making, please ask.

Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value.  I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects, as opposed to sexual human beings, are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.

And yes, I'm aware that my privileges are showing...I'm working on it.

http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html

A friend posted this on her facebook.  She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexualization.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16.  My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexualization was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing.  Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."

At first glance, that line of thinking isn't illogical.  Magazines, commercials, billboards, etc. show highly sexualized women, which didn't exist before the women's movement.  Women in advertising back then were still objectified and portrayed as stupid, only they were fully clothed.
However, women in general were more objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband.   Higher education was discouraged for women because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly.  Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no."  What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."

......WHAT?!?!?!?  Don't laws come about through cultural shifts??!?  
The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished.  It gave women choices, that's what feminism is.  Because women are still valued most highly as sex objects, many women still CHOOSE to fulfill that.  Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value.  I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.

A reader of this blog recently emailed me a request for an interview of my opinions on sex positivity. I was ecstatic to oblige and I got permission to post the interview here:  

A.B.: How do you define sex positivity?

Me: Sex positivity is harmonious with enthusiastic consent. Both involve a strong sense of self, awareness, communication, and respect for other consenting adults. A positive attitude about sex, both what one is having (or not having) and in general, educates and opens minds. Sex is more enjoyable when it is enthusiastic and positive - not fluffy bunny happy-face positive, but positive in the sense that the participating consenting adults are aware, respectful and pleased. This is not to say that asexuals and virgins can't be sex positive. The actual act of sex is only a part of sex positivity. Body positivity, respect for identity, intersectionality and inter/intrapersonal literacy are all other parts as well.

A.B.: When you lived in Edgewater, did you feel it was a sex positive place? Why or why not?

Me: It's difficult for me to say whether or not Edgewater was sex positive, except in comparison to Jefferson Park, where I grew up. Sex shops such as Tulip (would that count as Edgewater or Andersonville?) and Early 2 Bed never would have made it into Jefferson Park, nor would gender-aware businesses such as Kitchen Sink and Graham Cracker Comics - shout out to Shanna, who's a guru of comic books and feminism. In this sense, Edgewater is sex positive. I also had an art show as part of the Edgewater Art Walk in October 2011, which was technically PG-13 but with more racy ideological themes. Aside from these individual places and experiences, particularly in comparison to other more conservative/Victorian neighborhoods, Edgewater didn't seem to have much of a centralised community awareness. I have friends in Edgewater who don't tend to participate in in the community, and I know outsiders who make a special effort to participate.

A.B.: Where do you think the expression and enjoyment of a healthy sexuality tie into the grand picture of women’s health?*

Me: One can better enjoy sex with education, which involves sexual health. Many women don't have comprehensive sexual education about their own bodies, which is a health issue. When a woman doesn't comprehend her own body, how can she decipher her cycle, understand what angle of penetration is most pleasing to her (or penetration at all), or love her body at all? For example, many clinics and gynecologists will not give IUDs to women who are not already married with children. This practice declares that pleasurable sex is allowable only after one has reproduced sufficiently and in legally recognised monogamy. Firstly, very few women know about IUDs in the first place; secondly, how many women in that situation would continue to search? Or would know where to look? Or know that their states might provide financial coverage for both the IUD itself and its insertion procedure? Or whether she should get a Mirena IUD, Paragard IUD, or use another method? Reproductive health is a branch of sexual health, though the emphasis is stronger for women. The difference between vaginal and clitoral orgasms isn't valued as much as how an egg gets fertilised in our society (and even education on that is poor). The emphasis is on reproduction, not pleasure. While it's true that this information is important and protection from unwanted pregnancy is necessary, awareness should continue beyond that. A woman can take a birth control pill - regardless of her knowledge of how it affects her body - to keep from getting pregnant but still might not orgasm during sex and not know why. Resources for that understanding are fewer than for birth control, which is still too little.

A.B.: On your blog, you talk about sex positivity as a prevention technique. Can you expand on this?

Me: To better understand "prevention technique," I'll elaborate on exactly what is being prevented. There are many layers of sexual assault/harassment, none of them "better" or "worse" than another. There is the commonly perceived scene of a masculine stranger forcing a woman into something sexual; to be certain, this does occur and it is horrifying. There are also respected authority figures or seemingly-platonic intimates who use their relationships, sometimes unknowingly, to manipulate the trust of one for sexual ends. And then there is sexual coercion, given into in order to avoid a fight or to maintain a relationship. Sex positivity is not a shield against sexual harassment/assault, but it can both enhance one's awareness of a situation - particularly one's role, responsibility, options, lack of responsibility - and be a healing agent. Through sexual enthusiasm (again, not necessarily pertaining to the actual sex act), one can transcend from victim to survivor. Many people use this as a way to take back control in sex, whether as a dominant or a submissive or vanilla or asexual or "born-again virgin." For a survivor, sex positivity erases the taint on sexuality brought about by an assaulter. A "sex negative" mindset relates sex to shame and guilt (not in a consensual, bdsm way). When this connection is made, coercion and manipulation tend to be more effective. This isn't to say that a survivor in this kind of a situation is to blame: chances are that the survivor doesn't know that "no" or "yes" could be said and respected. Sex positivity as a cultural awareness opens communication and makes sex a discussion between consenting adults, personal sex positivity involves a consciousness of options and what one actually wants.

* I'm defining women's health as any health issues (mostly sexual health) that are of concern to anyone who identifies as female. I suppose an issue I'm also grappling with in the article is how typical discussion of women's health is kept narrowly to reproductive rights and resources, and I want to explore past that.

At my old job, five coworkers crushed on me openly.  Meanwhile, I was dating a ton with 3 lovers at any given time.  Up until spring 2011, my life was the exact opposite of that scenario, so I was shocked that I had somehow become such a hot commodity.  My appearances hadn't changed, my taste in books and music and movies hadn't changed, I'd just gotten more outspoken and bawdy and nerdy.  My coworkers and friends all insisted that I create a sex newsletter of my escapades, which of course got more interesting as more people became interested in me and so on cyclically.  

When things reached a peak at the New Year, I asked a few people - lovers, friends, coworkers - what I was doing that made all these people flock to me.  They said that I have a sexual aura.  Maybe it's my pheromones (sidenote: I have a theory that my premenstrual pheromones attract misogynists), maybe it's because I move with more confidence, maybe it's my openness, etc.  An actual aura seems unlikely, but perhaps I exude nerdy sex positivity like how some people exude anime cheer and others exude emo misery.  Most likely, my relatively new bawdy outspokenness and self-love are what made me so suddenly appealing.  
 
I wouldn't say that sexuality is something important to me primarily because it's not a "thing."  It's an inherent aspect of how I function.  Maybe that's a more logical way to articulate this "sexual aura."

I just read this: http://fuckyeahgenderstudies.tumblr.com/post/23608368667/more-on-leg-hair-tw-rape

"I was just googling to try and find some perspectives on women going to work with hairy legs. I couldn’t find much. I found an article from a woman who used not to shave her legs but now does; she believes it’s unprofessional, slobbish and ugly not to. And then I found an article, apparently trying to be “satirical”, from some bloke Yahoo contributor stating that women who don’t shave their legs don’t get raped. I.e. “rape can be prevented IF you are prepared”; “what guy is going to rape you if you have hairier legs than he does?”, etc. etc. ugh.
So I’ve abandoned the google search now.
This whole thing is so depressing."


I haven't shaved my legs or pits in 18 months and that isn't going to change anytime soon.  I don't wear pants or tights to hide it, I shouldn't have to.  Nobody at work has ever said anything, they don't care about how anyone looks so long as you don't reek.  My lovers either love my hair or don't care - generally, they appreciate most that I use my time and energy for more productive things.  

It's HAIR!  It doesn't do anything other than grow and keep you warm, which I need since I'm cold all the time.  What people do with their hair, whether on their legs or heads or crotches or pits, is nobody's business but their own.  No amount of hair is gross.

Self-love, whether one's personal comfort is hairless, trimmed or free-flowing, is more important.

I recently watched the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episodes about abstinence, teen sex and family values.  They pointed out something poignant about the conservatives involved in these topics: they're not accustomed to having people disagree with them.  There are, in fact, subgroups in this country that are so cloistered that any foreign lifestyle is completely unknown.  The higher-ups who oppose abortion, for example, may very well be unfamiliar with anyone who's open about a beneficial abortion (or who's life was made unbearable by not being able to get one).  

And then this happened: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html
Scott Walker signed bills that:  
- Block insurance companies from covering abortion
- Remove contraception from the sex education curriculum
- Overrule the objections of the Wisconsin Medical Association to interfere with doctors on counseling women on abortion
- Eliminate the states key protection for women trying to get equal pay for equal work.

These are symptoms of a large national shift which had most visibly arisen when the House nearly removed government funding from Planned Parenthood (which gave me a free pap smear and IUD thankyouverymuch).  

Don't get me wrong, Scott Walker is a fucking idiot.  No argument there.  But I wonder if other politicians have really just been sheltered from people who benefit from Planned Parenthood, from comprehensive sex ed, from access to legal and healthy abortions (and who talk openly about it), etc.  Where are the loud feminists?  Who's upfront and vocal about what our lives need when a "traditional marriage" isn't an option or even wanted?  Ask a few people who don't relate to feminism to name five things Hillary Clinton supports, if they know who Jessica Valenti is, why so many Women of Color refused the SlutWalk, etc.